From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Wright

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Mar 7, 1991
171 A.D.2d 905 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

Opinion

March 7, 1991

Appeal from the County Court of Broome County (Mathews, J.).


Defendant's only contention on appeal is that County Court improperly denied his motion to suppress his confession and certain physical evidence because he did not make a knowing, intelligent and voluntary waiver of his Miranda rights. The investigator who interviewed defendant testified that, upon reading defendant the Miranda warnings, defendant specifically stated that he understood each one and then, after being handed the waiver form to read, defendant proceeded to sign it at the bottom. Defendant then willingly answered questions and made a statement. Under such circumstances, and given the fact that the record indicates that defendant appeared to be in full control of his faculties, we find that defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his Miranda rights (see, People v Sirno, 76 N.Y.2d 967, 968; People v Groves, 157 A.D.2d 970, 970-971, lv denied 75 N.Y.2d 919; People v Shields, 125 A.D.2d 863, 864, lv denied 69 N.Y.2d 955).

Judgment affirmed. Mahoney, P.J., Casey, Levine, Mercure and Harvey, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Wright

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Mar 7, 1991
171 A.D.2d 905 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
Case details for

People v. Wright

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. SEAN E. WRIGHT…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department

Date published: Mar 7, 1991

Citations

171 A.D.2d 905 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
566 N.Y.S.2d 779

Citing Cases

People v. Spears

Miranda warnings are required whenever a person is subjected to custodial interrogation, that is, when a…

People v. Reid

The defendant's sentence was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). The defendant's remaining…